It has been reported in the papers today that tomorrow will see the announcement of 50 new peers, chosen to give the Coalition a majority in the Lords. By the time you read this, the names may have been announced. I hope they will not all be donors to the major parties. Reflecting on Baroness Murphy’s comments about how much, or how little difference the votes of the crossbenchers make – in my view the entire House has become more self conscious about its role. Because of the new dynamic of the Coalition, and because there are so many new peers, and because the threat of culling hangs over us, we are turning up more than ever. And we are introspective. We know that crossbench votes can make a significant difference and sometimes we are wooed by the other parties. We are often split down the middle, that is true; but at least we have made up our own minds by listening to the debate and reading the briefings. There is nothing more dispiriting than listening to a good debate including much expertise, and then finding that people are voting according to the party whip without allowing themselves to be influenced by the course of the debate (I noticed this with particular sadness during the largely ethical debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2008.) . The value of the crossbenchers is their independence and freedom to decide issues on the merits. In a House with a large government majority, we may become the only group really holding the government to account.
Crossbenchers make valuable contributions to debates which can also sway party-affiliated peers to vote against their party, particularly some of the more independent-minded ones.
I would prefer to see the party political peers culled and the crossbenches expanded. Any future system of election should focus on selecting candidates on individual merit and expertise, and not be a party list system like the abominable system used to elect MEPs.
The hypocrisy and deceit of the other place is apparent to all my Lady and it just goes to show the smugness of it. They`ve 4-5 years (provided in this case the Lib Dems don`t wake up) and now in Government don`t give a monkey`s about the electorate.
It`s a patently clear game to ruin the House, ruin the system and to remove anything that stands in Governments way. There seem`s little independence left in the Lords and this is against everything we`ve come to believe our constitution stood for, fairness and an open mind.
When I come here and debate with the noble Baroness Murphy and we disagree, I know it is her view that is disagreeing with me not the Party or the whip. There is nothing noble about being told which way to vote.
I hope the House will find it`s way to an independent voice for the Nation but sadly I think not, it has neither the power nor the wish since becoming full of the party drones.
Our parliamentary system has achieved something I never thought possible, it has made France look good and other Countries too. So much so many a good Englishman I knew upped and left stating ” I`ve had enough of this Country”. It`s becoming worse.
I hope the Crossbenchers are the ones to make a difference, it`s about time they were empowered in someway.
I’m just reading the list…surely this is an exception to the no swearing rule on lotb 😉
The comedians will have fun – Lord Lord and Lady Jolly!
“When I come here and debate with the noble Baroness Murphy and we disagree, I know it is her view that is disagreeing with me not the Party or the whip.”
Exactly. Nothing irritates me more than the number of ex-MPs who still act like they are MPs in the Lords.
Oh Croft, I so agree….but they have spent such a long time cultivating that aggression we have to give them time to calm down and behave like normal people. Former Ministers are a bit better I think, they are used to modifying their rage in public; it’s the former back bench MPs who can be tedious at first as they bring their party political scrapping into our Chamber. Dare I suggest that the men are worse than the women?
Well there off.
Failed MPs top the list.
Next on the list is those that have bought their peerages – or donated to the party. Take your pick.
The rest are pretty much all party hacks in some way.
So, as for expertise, not much has been added and the Lords is still lacking a hair dresser, car mechanic, …
No car mechanic but we do get a car salesman, should fit right in then, in the shape of Bob Edmiston.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11796066
This is why I say we restore the Hereditary Peers and put a cap on new Lords beign added.
Life Peerages shuld be given byt he Queen, perhaps by reccomendation by the Peers already seated, and sometes on her own perogative, not by Politicians.
I also dont see the merit int he argument that Hredity shuld not determien a seat but merit should, because those hwo “Merit” t in an election are those who are simply most popular, and those hwo “Merit” it now are just those who happen to donate enugh money to the ruling party.
Lets go back to a real systm of Checks and Balances, one in whuich the Lords is indepedant, has real power to block legislation, and is coposed of Hereditarians, Bishops, and senior Academics.
It’s still hard to shake the feeling that you’ve been smashing back the vodka pretty hard before posting, Zarove.
On the subject of hereditary peerages, I can only assume that you haven’t actually looked at any history ever. Otherwise, of course, you’d notice that hereditary positions are the most inefficient way of running anything. Oh, they’re very good at entrenching power among a wealthy elite, of course. They’re just not very good at preventing that wealthy elite from becoming inbred, pampered, ineffective morons who wouldn’t know an iphone from a cotton gin.
The general rule in businesses that get passed down from one generation to the next is that the third generation is the one that will destroy everything his grandfather built up. This is because you can pass down a position, but you cannot pass down intellect or experience.
The idea that anyone in the 20th century, let alone the 21st, believes that “my dad got to be in government therefore I get to be too” is a worthwhile and just way to run things makes my head spin. I mean, yes, what with the inherent corruption and the like that happens more often than it should anyway, but at least in the Commons we *pretend* that there is merit to the nepotism. Institutionalising it again would be the triumph of idle romanticism over actual thought.
A bit dispiriting to see the Dosh Brigade on the benches, but wonderful to see that Joan Bakewell will be joining you !!
Yes, the house will have two bookends, Baron Tyler and Baroness Tyler. Are they Related?